AMC

There can be no satisfactory conclusion for Walter White

Colby Cosh on why Walter White will not be missed

AMC theatre chairs just got a whole lot more comfortable

‘The Walking Dead’ is no ‘Mad Men’, and AMC has zombies marooned on a farm to prove it

What we know is that AMC wants to cut the budget and put in more commercials

Now that Netflix has driven video rental companies out of business, it’s going after the television networks

I wasn’t personally a fan of Rubicon, but a lot of people I respect were fans, and on their behalf I’m sorry that the show has been canceled after one season. I was wondering whether the success of The Walking Dead — success far beyond anything AMC has ever had before — would be good or bad news for Rubicon, whose ratings were low but comparable to the first seasons of AMC’s two flagship shows (Mad Men and Breaking Bad). Some people thought that this new success would make the network more willing to take a chance on a low-rated show that they like. Others argued that The Walking Dead created new expectations for this network: once they prove that they can get a big audience, it’s harder to make excuses for a show with a small audience, because the term “not bad for AMC” no longer applies. It looks like the latter might have been closer to the truth. Not that AMC will never pick up a low-rated show, but they’ve already got a low-rated show in Breaking Bad, and that show is more acclaimed (and better) than Rubicon. In general, though, low-rated shows have a better chance on struggling networks: we’ve seen repeatedly that NBC has a lower threshold for renewing a show than CBS does, because the expectations are lower at NBC. Future AMC shows may be expected to perform… not as well as Walking Dead, but certainly better than Rubicon. The show could be a victim of sudden increased expectations.

While waiting for the Mad Men replay at midnight, I’m watching AMC’s repeat of the pilot of Rubicon, their new show that will be premiering officially next week though they’ve already “sneak previewed” the pilot at least twice. I don’t judge the overall quality of shows based on pilots if it isn’t necessary, so I haven’t made up my mind about the show; I’ll wait to see the series. But one thing that has struck me based on the pilot is how cheap the show looks. In the way it’s shot and lit, even in the sound mix — with dialogue dimly recorded and underlaid with generic street noises to remind us that we’re in the city — it reminds me of nothing so much as a Canadian drama series from the ’80s or ’90s. And this just as the production values of Canadian dramas have improved. It’s like AMC felt that someone had to pick up the mantle of dull photography and tacky sets after we dropped it. As someone else mentioned, it has sort of a Night Heat look to it.

Remember when HBO prided itself on doing high-class programming? That’s changed.

Not surprisingly after the Emmy blowout, Mad Men has been picked up for a third season. However, Lionsgate and AMC don’t have a deal yet with creator/showrunner Matt Weiner, who is holding out for more money; if things fall apart (or if he accepts a better offer from richer networks, which are undoubtedly after him now), the show would have to come back without him.

A reader wants to know if I have any thoughts on The New York Times Magazine‘s big piece on Matt Weiner and Mad Men. I don’t have very many thoughts that could be considered original. It’s a good piece on a good show, though obviously it follows the same pattern as most in-depth reporter-on-the-scene articles on cable TV shows. That’s not meant as a criticism of the writer, Alex Witchel. These articles follow the same pattern because the shows follow the same pattern behind the scenes: there’s this guy, this writer guy, who has been kicking around network shows for years, wasn’t happy with many of the shows he worked on, the major networks wouldn’t let him in the door to pitch his stuff, and finally <fill in name of network> took a chance on his dream project despite the offbeat concept and apparently unlikeable characters, and now he’s the hottest writer in town, but he’s still an iconoclast who doesn’t fit into the whole Hollywood scene. The name changes from “David Chase” to “Alan Ball” to “Matthew Weiner” but the pattern is the same.